Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

[Red Frida]

Remember: "The consensus says it's true, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain the consensus. It doesn't matter whether it's factually true or false." It doesn't matter that you know it's bullshit and can prove it, point out the double standard, factually show the lie. The purpose of the system is being fulfilled and the jannies are complicit.

But in the end Byuu did kill himself, so the independent research would've been wrong.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

But in the end Byuu did kill himself, so the independent research would've been wrong.

But that doesn't justify using consensus as a metric, nor does it nullify the fact that there was no evidence at the time but it was repeated ad nauseum. Just because they were right once it doesn't justify the policy, which more often than not just gets things wrong. Such as "muh russian collusion" "right-wing extremists" "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" and more.

 

[scathefire]

But that doesn't justify using consensus as a metric, nor does it nullify the fact that there was no evidence at the time but it was repeated ad nauseum. Just because they were right once it doesn't justify the policy, which more often than not just gets things wrong. Such as "muh russian collusion" "right-wing extremists" "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" and more.

Byuu had hardly any pages on his thread and throughout said thread he was interacting with the posters in a cordial manner, not to mention that there's no evidence of people harassing him. Therefore it doesn't make sense that KF would have caused his suicide, despite what he claimed.

 

[Flexo]

But that doesn't justify using consensus as a metric, nor does it nullify the fact that there was no evidence at the time but it was repeated ad nauseum. Just because they were right once it doesn't justify the policy, which more often than not just gets things wrong. Such as "muh russian collusion" "right-wing extremists" "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" and more.

Oh wait, it was finally confirmed that Byuu did a self-delete? Was it actually in Japan or somewhere else? Last I heard was a confirmation that he wasn't counted in the "dead gaijin" stat or whatever the japs put out and had assumed he was laying low somewhere.

 

[Red Frida]

But that doesn't justify using consensus as a metric, nor does it nullify the fact that there was no evidence at the time but it was repeated ad nauseum. Just because they were right once it doesn't justify the policy, which more often than not just gets things wrong. Such as "muh russian collusion" "right-wing extremists" "cultural marxism conspiracy theory" and more.

How are you going to draw the line between what independent research is allowable and what's not? For every "Byuu didn't kill himself (but he did)" you're going to end up with a bunch of other questionable independently researched articles too, especially in scientific fields. No unpaid person is going to want to deal with all that shit, not even trannies.
The other thing about the consensus policy is that it insulates Wikipedia from institutional criticism. Wikipedia doesn't want to deal with bullshit like being deplatformed for wading into politics outside the mainstream. Maybe that's a tacit endorsement of journoscum political views. Maybe that's wrong. But Wikipedia is clearly an organization that wouldn't have been burned at the stake 500 years ago for saying the Earth revolves around the sun thanks to this type of policy. They're cowards because preserving the organization is the goal rather than focusing on beingfactually accurate, but your real enemy is the groups of people who deplatform people for or bar people from publishing information in "legitimate" channels that feed into Wikipedia. In other words you're not putting the horse before the cart.

 

[AnOminous]

Wikipedia doesn't want to deal with bullshit like being deplatformed for wading into politics outside the mainstream.

There's really nothing "mainstream" about calling chopping off little kids' genitals "science" or "medicine." The vast majority of people reject that shit when they realize it's really what troonery is all about.

They're cowards because preserving the organization is the goal rather than focusing on beingfactually accurate, but your real enemy is the groups of people who deplatform people for or bar people from publishing information in "legitimate" channels that feed into Wikipedia.

It's not even institutional protection. If anything, the absolute insanity of current Wikipedia policy is using it so blatantly as a propaganda outlet that it's lost whatever credibility it ever had. If you don't already agree with what's there it isn't really going to change your mind.

 

[Red Frida]

There's really nothing "mainstream" about calling chopping off little kids' genitals "science" or "medicine." The vast majority of people reject that shit when they realize it's really what troonery is all about.

Well yes that place like a lot of other places in the internet run by unpaid volunteers is run by troons so they're going to cherry pick sources to avoid making themselves look like freaks, but if you got the NYT to run articles more or less saying what you just said Wikipedia wouldn't be able to hide behind that consensus policy. I also believe if it were more of a "kiwipedia" it would be at greater risk of deplatforming and probably have lower revenues.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Well yes that place like a lot of other places in the internet run by unpaid volunteers is run by troons so they're going to cherry pick sources to avoid making themselves look like freaks, but if you got the NYT to run articles more or less saying what you just said Wikipedia wouldn't be able to hide behind that consensus policy. I also believe if it were more of a "kiwipedia" it would be at greater risk of deplatforming and probably have lower revenues.

The NYT has IIRC run an article or two like that in recent years, and there's the recent NHS report that also criticizes it, and of course years and years of papers contradicting gender ideology. This is a genuine debate in our institutions, especially recently. However, Wikipedia does not include any of this and will hand you a ridiculously one-sided view on the topic. Same thing if you look up any current event. You aren't even allowed to use normie conservative-leaning sources like Fox News or Daily Mail to try and balance out the viewpoint. Note that Wikipedia permits explicitly progressive blogs and news sources and even says that the World Socialist Website (a literal communist website) can be a reliable source "especially on ongoing labor disputes."

So no, Wikipedia has no desire to actually enforce their NPOV policy and make even the slightest attempt to remain neutral.

 

[Red Frida]

The NYT has IIRC run an article or two like that in recent years, and there's the recent NHS report that also criticizes it, and of course years and years of papers contradicting gender ideology. This is a genuine debate in our institutions, especially recently. However, Wikipedia does not include any of this and will hand you a ridiculously one-sided view on the topic. Same thing if you look up any current event. You aren't even allowed to use normie conservative-leaning sources like Fox News or Daily Mail to try and balance out the viewpoint. Note that Wikipedia permits explicitly progressive blogs and news sources and even says that the World Socialist Website (a literal communist website) can be a reliable source "especially on ongoing labor disputes."

So no, Wikipedia has no desire to actually enforce their NPOV policy and make even the slightest attempt to remain neutral.

Alright that's fucked then.

 

[Ferrari Lamborghini]

However, Wikipedia does not include any of this and will hand you a ridiculously one-sided view on the topic. Same thing if you look up any current event. You aren't even allowed to use normie conservative-leaning sources like Fox News or Daily Mail to try and balance out the viewpoint. Note that Wikipedia permits explicitly progressive blogs and news sources and even says that the World Socialist Website (a literal communist website) can be a reliable source "especially on ongoing labor disputes."

The basic policy-trick Wikipedia uses is to move its bias one step away from where you're looking.

You see, Wikipedia is not biased. It simply builds its articles on the basis of information published in Reliable Sources™. Sounds great, right?

...except, "Reliable Sources™" =/= "Reliable Sources"

A "Reliable Source" is a source that has no clear biases, no institutional issues, etc. A "Reliable Source™" on the other hand is simply any source that has been declared as such through votes on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (a page hidden behind several layers of other, equally obscure pages and not advertised anywhere on the website) by the small cabal of like-minded editors who are aware of that page's existence, and listed on their Perennial sources page.

It's a trick in which you conceptualize a term with a good connotation (keeping the term, but shedding it of its etymological meaning) and make it mean something less positive. You see, the reason why the flat-earth-believer thinks that the earth is flat is because he trusts the information of Trustworthy Scientists*

* "Trustworthy Scientists" = the name the flat-earth-believer and his buddies have given the group of five crackpot scientists who believe in a flat earth

In a way, it's a strategy that is perfectly on-point for leftists. You take something bad, and simply shuffle it around a bit to make the bad part disappear. It's a thoroughly bureaucratic approach to (il)logic. It's the kind of idiocy and (self-)deception and lying by omission that shitholes like the Soviet Union were built on.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

Yeah Ferrari has already explained. The hate for "original research" wouldn't be nearly as egregious if they weren't so hilariously biased on what counts as "reliable source" and what doesn't.

For example, they removed Wikileaks as a possible source following 2016 because "muh Russia". This was never shown to be true, no facts were presented to make this case, and despite that they ignore the entire thing.

 

[AnOminous]

A "Reliable Source" is a source that has no clear biases, no institutional issues, etc. A "Reliable Source™" on the other hand is simply any source that has been declared as such through votes on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (a page hidden behind several layers of other, equally obscure pages and not advertised anywhere on the website) by the small cabal of like-minded editors who are aware of that page's existence, and listed on their Perennial sources page.

And even that's bullshit. If the ultimate super duper Woke-Certified Reliable Source says something troons don't like, like the NYT's few feeble pushbacks against troon quackery, that somehow doesn't end up in the article.

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

"nitrus" is a meme. They are slipping memes into chemistry articles now. Nuke the wikipedia servers, DDOS wikipedia.org into oblivion, stir fry wikipedos.

 

[SuccubusFeeder]

Your PFP looks troony.

Is it better now, nigger?

Note that Wikipedia permits explicitly progressive blogs and news sources and even says that the World Socialist Website (a literal communist website) can be a reliable source "especially on ongoing labor disputes."

When is Wikipedia going to start citing North Korean news?

 

[Santa Klaus]

Is it better now, nigger?

When is Wikipedia going to start citing North Korean news?

Yes.

 

[Idiot Asshole]

Yeah Ferrari has already explained. The hate for "original research" wouldn't be nearly as egregious if they weren't so hilariously biased on what counts as "reliable source" and what doesn't.

For example, they removed Wikileaks as a possible source following 2016 because "muh Russia". This was never shown to be true, no facts were presented to make this case, and despite that they ignore the entire thing.

Don't forget the 180 they took on the Anti-Defamation League this past year after years of acting like they were an unassailable source, just because they (predictably) sided with Israel against le heckin cute and valid paliniggerinos

 

[lolcow yoghurt]

We need a "badly taken person photos on Wikipedia" thread.

Awful (almost non-existent) lighting, awkward face expression, bad angle, outdated (for a person who was born in 1993)

 

[Danann]

The Q has been officially added to the shitass 1st-word problem crew on Wikipedia...

 

[Corpun]

I was reading Wikipedia, and I decided to use Google rookie mistake. I know I forgot what I was googling. I think I was trying to find news on Trump, and Google had a popup saying how to register to vote. I clicked it. Google then suggested mail-in ballots as the best option while also leaving open the idea of registering in person, so already it's biased towards Democrats and mail-ins. I then clicked on Wikipedia's article, and low and behold, the most biased article in Wikipedia history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election

Im not going to go into extensive detail as it would be a pain, but I will leave you with this excerpt comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler.
View attachment 6424587

That whole article is ridden with TDS. Even the 2020 totally legitimiate election isn't as deranged and focused on propaganda as the 2024 election page. It is so bad it reads like a second Trump article.




Is any of this important?


This section goes on for like 3 more paragraphs.




You have to scroll through all this shit before you actually see the candidates and who has endorsed who and all the polling data. Unfortunately doesn't stop there. Get a load of this wall of text for a campaign issue.

Spoiler: Democracy

Democracy is expected to be a large issue in the 2024 election. An AP-NORC poll of 1,074 adults conducted between November 30 to December 4, 2023, found that 62% of adults said democracy could be at risk depending on who wins the next election.[242]

Polling before the election has indicated profound dissatisfaction with the state of American democracy.[243][244][245] Liberals tend to believe that conservatives are threatening the country with Christian nationalist autocratic tendencies and their attempts to overturn the 2020 election.[246] Some Republicans are concerned that Trump's former impeachment and four criminal indictments are attempts to influence the election and keep him from office.[247] However, there is no evidence that Trump's criminal trials are "election interference" orchestrated by Joe Biden and the Democratic Party.[82][43] Trump has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him.[13]

Donald Trump's 2024 campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for making increasingly violent and authoritarian statements,[248][249][250] which some believe the Trump campaign is intentionally leaning into.[251] Trump's platform calls for the vast expansion of presidential powers and the executive branch over every part of the federal government.[252] Trump has called for stripping employment protections for thousands of career civil service employees and replacing them with political loyalists if deemed an "obstacle to his agenda" within federal agencies, the United States Intelligence Community, State Department, and Department of Defense.[253] Trump has repeatedly stated his intention to have the Justice Department investigate and arrest his domestic political rivals, judges, prosecutors, and witnesses involved in his criminal trials.[254][255][256] Trump has previously tried to prosecute his political rivals and would have fewer checks on his power in a second term.[257] Project 2025 is a proposed plan by the Heritage Foundation to centralize power into the executive branch for conservative policies to be enacted without input from the judicial branch, legislative branch or local government. The plan received some support from the Republican Party. The document was written in part by former members of the Trump administration such as Russell Vought, and John McEntee[258] while Donald Trump stated he is unfamiliar with parts of the plan.[259][260][261]

Trump's campaign has been noted for using increasingly dehumanizing and violent rhetoric against his political enemies.[123][222][262][126][263][264] Trump has promised to pardon those charged for their involvement in the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack and has called those charged "hostages" and "great, great patriots."[265][266][267] Trump has played down but not ruled out violence after the 2024 election if he does not win, stating, "it depends."[268]

Harris was tasked by Biden with protecting democracy through voting rights legislation through her work on the For the People Act. Harris has supported efforts to defend election workers and counter Republican efforts to restrict voting following the 2020 presidential election.[188] Harris says she supports efforts to improve racial justice. Harris previously supported the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act.[188] Harris has supported demilitarizing police departments, and has pushed back against calls to defund the police.[234] Harris has stated her support to pass the Freedom to Vote Act and John Lewis Rights Voting Rights Advancement Act if elected.[269]

 

[General Emílio Médici]

It's propaganda.

Simple as.